Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Debate between Lincoln Jopp and Mike Martin

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill.

By reducing the funding termination agreement period from seven years to two, the Bill aims to make secure 16-to-19 academies more cost effective and adaptable, giving the Government greater flexibility to close underperforming academies or repurpose them without being locked in for such a long period. These measures are welcome, not least because of the opportunity that they offer to reinvest into community-based youth services.

The Liberal Democrats believe that any freed-up funds should be directed towards making youth diversion a statutory duty, ensuring that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25. We believe that that would deliver better outcomes for young people and reduce pressure on police and courts.

According to the evidence, high-quality youth work has consistently been shown to help vulnerable young people escape the grip of criminal gangs. However, as we all know, youth services have suffered repeated cuts over many years, robbing young people of that support and contributing to antisocial behaviour and rising violent crime. By reinvesting savings into early intervention and support, fewer young people will fall into offending cycles, meaning fewer arrests, fewer custodial sentences and, ultimately, less need for these academies. We believe that the real long-term savings lie in prevention, rather than detention.

That all being said, the Bill represents the opportunity to create a virtuous circle, a funding opportunity, and an opportunity to build safer communities, and the Liberal Democrats support it.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a please to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill. I have only one question for the Minister to answer in his summing up. On reducing the notice given to providers from seven to two years, I agree with the characterisation. In respect of the existing contract, however, has that had to be renegotiated— from the service provider’s point of view, obviously the Bill represents a significant change in the terms of the contract—and has that renegotiation cost the taxpayer any money?

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lincoln Jopp and Mike Martin

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 43 in my name and in the name of the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), both of whom I thank for their support. It is also co-signed by 100 Members from across the House representing our entire political spectrum from almost every party, including many Members of the Labour party.

New clause 43 seeks to do something very simple: to commence the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which has already received Royal Assent. This Act simply criminalises the harassment of people in public based on their sex, but this is a crime that overwhelmingly affects women so this really is about the criminalisation of harassment of women in public.

The Act started life as a private Member’s Bill laid by my constituency predecessor, Greg Clark. He was approached by a sixth-former in our constituency who said that she had been harassed while coming home from school. One third of schoolgirls in the United Kingdom say they have been harassed in their school uniforms. We should be ashamed of that statistic, and Greg was ashamed and he took action.

The 2023 Act, as passed, creates a specific offence of harassment on account of someone’s sex. Like the new clause I rise to speak in support of, it received cross-party support, including, it must be said, from the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is now the Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls.

The Act criminalises harassing, following and shouting degrading comments and making obscene gestures at women and girls in public with the deliberate intention of causing them harm or distress, and it carries a maximum sentence of two years. So I am quite disappointed and confused by the interactions that I have had with the Government on this issue. Every time I have pressed them for an update on commencement, I have not really received a substantive answer. For example, eight months ago I asked a question in this House and received a letter from the Government telling me that the Home Office is making all the necessary arrangements and that I would be contacted when a commencement date is confirmed. As a new MP, I thought this was quite promising. Five months ago, I tabled a written question and the Government responded saying that they would publish next steps at the earliest opportunity. Then two weeks ago I received a reply from the Government to a further communication stating that an update on commencement would be provided in due course. Each communication I receive from the Government is a little vaguer, a little bit less definitive about commencement.

Yesterday, at her instigation, I met with the Minister for VAWG and I thought, “Fantastic, finally we will get some answers.” But there was nothing, I am afraid—there was nada, zip. I gently ask the Minister present now—not the Minister for VAWG—what is the point in arranging a meeting if the Government are not going to say anything new to what they have previously said?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Select Committee on Defence, for giving way, and I am proud to put my name to new clause 43 in his name. I also pay tribute to him for taking forward Greg Clark’s previous work in a very cross-party way for the benefit of the community. Does he share my frustration and slight bewilderment at the way in which the Government appear to be blocking commencement?

[Mike Martin]

In the Government’s defence, I do not think that this is a difference in policy; it is a difference in timing, but the timing seems to be very elastic. We seek a definitive time when the Act will be commenced—perhaps the Minister can respond at the Dispatch Box.